beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 107,900,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 1, 2017 to April 10, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. In around 2012, the Plaintiff supplied C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with raw materials manufactured in direct goods. Since C was unable to pay the price for goods to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s Ba, who is the Defendant, was running a business under the trade name “E” upon receiving a successful bid for C.
B. On January 18, 2017, D drafted a short-term loan agreement stating that “D would redeem the outstanding amount for the Plaintiff’s joint purchase (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”)” and attached a repayment plan stating that “107,980,000 won shall be repaid in installments on June 30, 2017; and on December 30, 2017, it shall be 15,000,000,000 won until December 30, 2018, and 20,980,000 won shall be repaid until December 30, 2019.”
B. The Defendant and D appears to be the Plaintiff’s clerical error in June 3, 2017, “On July 20, 2017,” which appears to be a clerical error in the Plaintiff around July 20, 2017.
(i) Loans;
8. up to 30. 30. Recognizing that extension is essential, and E has fully assumed C’s claims and obligations.
"A request for extension of repayment of short-term loans" is referred to as "written request for extension of repayment of short-term loans."
(B) prepared and proposed the proposal. [The facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties asserted that the defendant does not pay the price of goods to the plaintiff while operating C in substance in around 2012. D has been awarded a successful bid around July 30, 2013 and changed the name "Co. E" into the trade name "Co. E". In the process, E Co., Ltd. took over the price of goods against the plaintiff under the loan agreement of this case. After that, the above price of goods was converted into the loan obligation under the loan agreement of this case. The defendant completed the written request for extension of the repayment of this case with his own seal and delivered the above loan obligation to the plaintiff, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation to the plaintiff.